The Smart Marks' Countdown: Iraq

[Guest JMA]

I hope after all this the US finally learns that using the policy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" can cause major problems in the future.

[Guest SP-1]

Wait, Bush talked about the Draft in his speech??

[cawthon777 0]

And you're simply generalizing Hollywood as a bunch of liberals who hate everything conservative. I neither like or dislike Hollywood. It matters not to me. I still think Hollywood would oppose the war no matter who was in charge.

I'm not generalizing. There are some conservative people in Hollywood (about as rare as a bigfoot sighting, but they are there). What I'm trying to say is that Hollywood by and far would do anything for Clinton / Gore. Think about all the campaign fundraisers, those who stayed at the White House over those 8 years, hell - Tommy Lee Jones was Al Gore's college roommate.

 

I'm not saying they hate everything conservative - I just think they loved the previous administration. And if that had continued on some level, they would be supporting it.

[Guest JMA]

Wait, Bush talked about the Draft in his speech??

I have my cyanide ready...

[Guest SP-1]

What did he say?

[Guest Austin3164life]

Bush did not speak about a draft, no, but many Congressman wrote articles about how if we were to go to war, the draft should be reinstated because "it should be a shared sacrifice among all Americans". That's the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever heard. I would NEVER risk my life for someone else's cause and not my own. And I can't stand the fact that people who merely question what the US government does during the war are scrutinized to hell. I think for a culture to mature, people need to question what our government does. We are too blinded by consumerism to tell the difference anyway.

[Guest JMA]

Bush did not speak about a draft, no, but many Congressman wrote articles about how if we were to go to war, the draft should be reinstated because "it should be a shared sacrifice among all Americans". That's the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever heard. I would NEVER risk my life for someone else's cause and not my own. And I can't stand the fact that people who merely question what the US government does during the war are scrutinized to hell. I think for a culture to mature, people need to question what our government does. We are too blinded by consumerism to tell the difference anyway.

Well said.

[cawthon777 0]

This whole war is the worst idea since Vietnam. I heard Bush's speech tonight, and he answered every question with the same "My job is to keep America safe" retort. The worst thing I can't stand is when I get scrutinized for questioning Bush and not blindly supporting his "gung-ho" campaign. I find it hard to believe that just because a government decides to go to war, the citizens have to support the President. And I am COMPLETELY against a draft resolution and a "shared sacrifice" among Americans. If I don't believe in a war (or war in general), I would never subject myself to risking my life for someone else's cause. Bombing Iraq and replacing the regime will cause more and more Palestinians to hate the American government, and it will destabilize the region. The people there suffer enough already with malnutrition and water poisoning. It's funny, since the US put Hussein in power. Look how the US handled the Egyptian "crisis" in the fifties. Many suspected Mohammed (?) Nasser of obtaining weapons of mass destruction and planning to use them, but Eisenhower said regime change is "absolutely out of the question" and told France and Britain to not interfere. 5-10 years later, Nasser died and nothing happened.

Hi,

 

This is 2003, not the 50s. There was this little thing a while back called 9/11. It kinda said that we can't afford to pull the benign neglect card anymore when it comes to hateful regimes that threaten us (and I don't see how that can be argued but feel free).

 

Um, what draft? Draft = scare tactic. Iraq is not worth establishing a draft for. I know it's good to be prepared but that's like killing a bug with a machine gun.

 

I'm not supporting the government because it told me to - I'm supporting it because it provides a logical course of action. If it were up to me, I would have opted to take Saddam out of power in 91. Better yet, I would have put a bullet in his head while he was being removed from power.

 

You know what the Arab nations mean when they say invading Iraq will result in destabalizing the region? It means it would be establishing democracy. Democracy = scary for them.

 

So your argument for not going to war is that the people of Iraq suffer enough? Okay, let's just do nothing about that. Because obviously if we took a course of action that resulted in them being freed from an oppressive regime - that would be a bad thing ... right? All that money that Iraq makes off of its oil doesn't even go to the people. You think that maybe if it did, they wouldn't be starving so much?

[Guest SP-1]

Isn't Vietnam totally different than Iraq though? In terms of war tactics at least. We've been to Iraq, we know the terrain, and we know how to fight them on their turf. Nam had our boys going up against people trained to completely own their land and use it to their advantage, which led to us getting blindsided often. I see little similarity between the two.

[Guest Austin3164life]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Just because Bush keeps saying he did does not mean it's true. A number of objective international research teams did investigations and Iraq had no ties to terrorist cells. Sure, I believe Saddam is a tyrant, and he should be exiled, but we can't merely invade on circumstantial evidence and because "he butchers his own people". If you saw your neighbor beating his wife, would you go in there and beat the guys ass? Bush is so fixated on Iraq, he's ignoring the economy, which is heading in a downward spiral, and he's ignoring actual proven threats (like Iran, who actually is building up plutonium factories, and has clear ties to terrorism). What's funny is that we have always been an ally of Iran.

 

To respond to SP, I generally believe that bombing another nation based on circumstantial reasons alone and thinking they are a threat is a horrible reason to start a conflict in which surely innocent people will die.

[Guest SP-1]

I do hope that we don't take it upon ourselves to kill Saddam. I'd rather see him imprisoned for life or something. Let the World Courts handle him if we can pin something substantial on him during the war.

[Guest Austin3164life]

I do hope that we don't take it upon ourselves to kill Saddam. I'd rather see him imprisoned for life or something. Let the World Courts handle him if we can pin something substantial on him during the war.

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Guest JMA]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Just because Bush keeps saying he did does not mean it's true. A number of objective international research teams did investigations and Iraq had no ties to terrorist cells. Sure, I believe Saddam is a tyrant, and he should be exiled, but we can't merely invade on circumstantial evidence and because "he butchers his own people". If you saw your neighbor beating his wife, would you go in there and beat the guys ass? Bush is so fixated on Iraq, he's ignoring the economy, which is heading in a downward spiral, and he's ignoring actual proven threats (like Iran, who actually is building up plutonium factories, and has clear ties to terrorism). What's funny is that we have always been an ally of Iran.

 

To respond to SP, I generally believe that bombing another nation based on circumstantial reasons alone and thinking they are a threat is a horrible reason to start a conflict in which surely innocent people will die.

You should really post here more often.

[cawthon777 0]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Just because Bush keeps saying he did does not mean it's true. A number of objective international research teams did investigations and Iraq had no ties to terrorist cells. Sure, I believe Saddam is a tyrant, and he should be exiled, but we can't merely invade on circumstantial evidence and because "he butchers his own people". If you saw your neighbor beating his wife, would you go in there and beat the guys ass? Bush is so fixated on Iraq, he's ignoring the economy, which is heading in a downward spiral, and he's ignoring actual proven threats (like Iran, who actually is building up plutonium factories, and has clear ties to terrorism). What's funny is that we have always been an ally of Iran.

As I remember, we were not allies of Iran back in the late 70s when they were holding several Americans hostage.

 

Hmm, here's an idea. Saddam hates America, he pays the families of homocide bombers, and he donated quite a bit of money to bin Laden's group several years ago. I'd say he supports terrorism.

 

There's also that thing about him not complying with ... how many is it now ... 18 resolutions over the past 12 years? It's good that he got rid of 10 missiles - but what about the other 190 that are missing? Yeah, those inspections sure are working.

 

Maybe if we could just hurry up and take care of Saddam then we could turn our attention to the other countries that need a severe talking to like Saudi and North Korea.

 

What would you suggest?

[Guest SP-1]

You know, I'll be hoenst. I have this vague fear that we're going to go over there and wreck shit and find . . . nothing. To be honest, it isn't even Bush that makes me believe Saddam's being a shady bastard, it's Colin Powell. While I think Bush is a man of convictiona dn integrity, Powell just . . . gives off vibes of trustworthiness. He's like Churchill to me for some reason. I believe him. But if we find nothing for whatever reason . . . damn. Just damn.

[Guest Austin3164life]

I realize where you are coming from, Cawthon, but seriously there is no evidence linking Saddam to Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist group. I agree with everyone that Saddam is sadistic and a menace, however I believe the World should deal with him in a democratic manner.

 

BTW, other than the Iran/Contra scandal in the late 70s and early 80s, USA has been a supporter of Iran since the late fifties.

[cawthon777 0]

You know, I'll be hoenst. I have this vague fear that we're going to go over there and wreck shit and find . . . nothing. To be honest, it isn't even Bush that makes me believe Saddam's being a shady bastard, it's Colin Powell. While I think Bush is a man of convictiona dn integrity, Powell just . . . gives off vibes of trustworthiness. He's like Churchill to me for some reason. I believe him. But if we find nothing for whatever reason . . . damn. Just damn.

The thing is, he's had 12 years to do with it whatever he wants. They might still be in the country, they might not be. But they weren't destroyed.

[Guest SP-1]

You know, I'll be hoenst.  I have this vague fear that we're going to go over there and wreck shit and find . . . nothing.  To be honest, it isn't even Bush that makes me believe Saddam's being a shady bastard, it's Colin Powell.  While I think Bush is a man of convictiona dn integrity, Powell just . . . gives off vibes of trustworthiness.  He's like Churchill to me for some reason.  I believe him.  But if we find nothing for whatever reason . . . damn.  Just damn.

The thing is, he's had 12 years to do with it whatever he wants. They might still be in the country, they might not be. But they weren't destroyed.

Oh I agree. he's hiding something, I just hope we find it, whatever and wherever it is.

[cawthon777 0]

I agree with everyone that Saddam is sadistic and a menace, however I believe the World should deal with him in a democratic manner.

That's the problem - the "world" (almost everyone outside of the US and UK) have shown that they aren't interested in this. Otherwise we would not be in this position today.

[Guest Austin3164life]

I agree with everyone that Saddam is sadistic and a menace, however I believe the World should deal with him in a democratic manner.

That's the problem - the "world" (almost everyone outside of the US and UK) have shown that they aren't interested in this. Otherwise we would not be in this position today.

It's not that they aren't interested, it's just that they would like to see a democratic solution to something like this, rather than go through another war (most likely a glorified four-day battle).

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

If Gore was President and about to strike Iraq, the Republicans would be criticizing him for "wagging the dog" away from "domestic concerns".

 

It's the truth.

[Guest bob_barron]

Dr. Tom provided this link a while ago showing a link between Saddam and terror-

 

http://www.janes.com/security/internationa...10919_1_n.shtml

[Guest Austin3164life]

Of course. It's all about political careers. Why do you think Congress passed the rediculous "Patriot Act"? If they didn't, others would criticize them for being "unpatriotic". Funny thing is, 60% of the people would believe that in a campaign, rather than question his actual beliefs and policy.

[Guest NoCalMike]

You know, I'll be hoenst.  I have this vague fear that we're going to go over there and wreck shit and find . . . nothing.  To be honest, it isn't even Bush that makes me believe Saddam's being a shady bastard, it's Colin Powell.  While I think Bush is a man of convictiona dn integrity, Powell just . . . gives off vibes of trustworthiness.  He's like Churchill to me for some reason.  I believe him.  But if we find nothing for whatever reason . . . damn.  Just damn.

Well since you trust in Mr. Powell so much, don't you think it is kind of peculiar that a few months ago he was against going to war and then all of the sudden without any new evidence he SUDDENLY does a total 180 and is all for it. Kind of weird to me. What made him make that sharp turn out of nowhere...PRESSURE from the whitehouse?

[Guest Austin3164life]

Dr. Tom provided this link a while ago showing a link between Saddam and terror-

 

http://www.janes.com/security/internationa...10919_1_n.shtml

Nothing against you, Barron, but this is coming from Israel, which is basically just as much a terrorist state as any other Middle Eastern nation.

[cawthon777 0]

It's not that they aren't interested, it's just that they would like to see a democratic solution to something like this, rather than go through another war (most likely a glorified four-day battle).

A democratic solution would be super. I think we've been working on that since 91 and the UN Resolutions haven't really done anything other than provide Saddam with quality toilet paper. If the UN won't enforce it's own policies why should Saddam worry about being taken out of power?

[Guest DrTom]

I realize where you are coming from, Cawthon, but seriously there is no evidence linking Saddam to Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist group.

Saddam Hussein gave millions of dollars to Usama bin Laden on several occasions in the mid-1990s. We know this already. Hell, it was even reported on TV. Saddam also compensates the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, to the tune of $25,000 USD each (Saudi Arabia does this, also). Again, we know this, and it was even reported on TV.

 

I suppose your wonderful independent research groups know things that the CIA, Mossad, and Shin Bet do not?

[cawthon777 0]

If Gore was President and about to strike Iraq, the Republicans would be criticizing him for "wagging the dog" away from "domestic concerns".

 

It's the truth.

I'm a Republican and I think this should have been taken care of more than 10 years ago. So there goes that theory...

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

That's the problem - the "world" (almost everyone outside of the US and UK) have shown that they aren't interested in this. Otherwise we would not be in this position today.

Then maybe we should think about that?

 

You keep using 9/11 to justify going into Iraq because they're threatening to us, but we had a LOT of sympathy from the rest of the world following 9/11 and it isn't there anymore. What happened? We squandered it.

 

BTW, 9/11 changed nothing. We were always threatened by terrorists. They just happened to pull something off successfully this time. And if the people onboard adopted a pack mindset and overwhelmed the terrorists, 9/11 would have failed too.

[Guest DrTom]

If Gore was President and about to strike Iraq, the Republicans would be criticizing him for "wagging the dog" away from "domestic concerns".

Had Gore diddled one of his interns, lied to a grand jury about it, and then decided to launch a military strike on the eve of his likely impeachment, then I suppose they would. Otherwise, I doubt they'd have a problem with it. Gore always has been rather hawkish for a Democrat.